From: Mullen, Patrick <MullenP@ndhm06.ndhm.gtegsc.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:12:36 -0800 (PST)
To: "'ichudov@algebra.com>
Subject: RE: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks maiing list
Message-ID: <199701242112.NAA07643@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Igor sez:
>Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the
>criterion by which he moderates this list. I question this policy.

I question this, too.  What, exactly, is the criterion?

Cypherpunks charter sez:
The cypherpunks list is a forum for discussing personal defenses for
privacy in the digital domain.  

<Keep in mind I didn't read the described article> How does personal
attacks
through forged and anonymous mail not fit this topic?

However, I _do_ have to say such a topic would have to keep with a 
descriptive attitude, rather than demonstrative...  :-)

On another note, even though some messages which may be of interest may
get lost in the shuffle, I do like the reduced volume, esp. since I get
listmail
at work.  Unfortunately, the reduced mail is a result of censorship...
:-(

~ Patrick


>----------
>From: 	ichudov@algebra.com[SMTP:ichudov@algebra.com]
>Sent: 	Friday, January 24, 1997 2:33 AM
>To: 	Cypherpunks
>Subject: 	Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks maiing list
>
>I would like to start a thread to discuss the moderation and rejection 
>policy.
>
>My perfectly crypto-relevant article regarding possible attacks
>on human relationships with the use of forged mail and anonymous
>remailers, has been tossed out (sorted) into cypherpunks-flames 
>mailing list.
>
>You can receive a copy of my article by an email request.
>
>The explanation that Sandy Sandfort gave me mentioned that he rejected
>my message because it continued a thread where Sandy noticed instances
>of "flaming". Note that my message was free of any flames, including
>its quoted part.
>
>Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the
>criterion by which he moderates this list. I question this policy.
>
>I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy
>the current readership.
>
>	- Igor.
>
>